Smopit wrote:Are you drawn to comics with something familiar in them (ie: a fan comic of something you are familiar with, or a comic with a character in it that you know) more so than an entirely original comic? Or would you say that isn't relevant?

I love fanfiction, but only when I'm already involved in the fandom. In regards to comics, though, I prefer original works. Especially in webcomic form.

Some of the reasons that I like original comics better:- I don't need to know anything about the original series (this is especially important for any Marvel or DC stuff. There's expectations put on the reader that they need to know everything, and that's difficult to keep up with)- There are opportunities to merchandise your comic if it gets popular enough.- Selling the comic (either physical or digital copies) isn't a legal issue- You have more freedom to do what you want with the characters without people getting angry about it.

There's a lot of people who make fan comics, and there's even people who sell them successfully, but there's a lot more risks involved wth making fan works, even if you might get a boost in readers by someone else's characters.

I prefer original works (it's a unique voice telling their own story every time, something we didn't really have that much before the Internet and indie publishers, and to me it's usually more special than mainstream media targeted at much bigger audiences and taking less risks).

eishiya wrote:The "familiar" elements I like to see in stories are very broad cultural stuff that most writers and readers take for granted anyway, like... having characters, particularly who are humanoid/anthropomorphic enough that I can parse their expressions, People Sit on Chairs, etc.

This! Slice of life is my favourite genre because of it - and while I can still enjoy fantasy it's still the mundane parts of it (something that can work in any setting I guess) that bring me the most joy.

I like some fan comics but it's usually very broad fandoms (like Pokemon) that allow people to take their own twist at the setting AND have their own original characters. And it's that unique take on something familiar rather than the familiar franchise itself that draws me to each particular comic in that case.

Would you rather read a comic that uploads a new page every week or a comic that uploads an entire (30 or so page) chapter every six months?I have a much easier time keeping up with a comic that makes smaller, more regular updates. Often times with manga, since there is such a length of time between episodes, I lose interest and forget details between installments.

How often do you upload?For my first comic, Concerning Rosamond Grey, I posted one page a week. For my sequel comic, I really want to update 2-3 a week.

How long does it take for you to complete a page?For my first comic initially, it would take me 12 hours: by the end, a page would take me under 5 hours.

Do you post a page after its completed or do you have a backlog?I never had a buffer. It's one of the those things that is strongly recommended that I have never done. Like Eishiya says, I prefer to be able to "be with the readers", and not be to ahead mentally. I might even change my plans for a page if a reader's comment warrants more explanation or whatnot.

About how many pages do you have backlogged?0

Are you drawn to comics with something familiar in them (ie: a fan comic of something you are familiar with, or a comic with a character in it that you know) more so than an entirely original comic? Or would you say that isn't relevant?I avoid fan comics, partially because I likely don't know the franchise, partly because many of them are amateurish, but mostly because I object to the principle of fan comics or fan fiction: why build on a franchise when you can work towards your story and maybe even franchise?

Conversely, you might have a situation where the comic story is completely original, but the art style is reminiscent of a already established style (Arte Nouvelle, Disney, manga, etc). Is it better to have your own style that is unique, but will have a harder time gaining traction because it's different, or is it acceptable to "cheat" by making your art style similar to something that is famous and will attract readers? I don't know the answer to that.

What do people think of underdogs? In your experience and/or preference, do people tend to like underdog characters? Characters who mess things up? Characters who make sometimes big mistakes? Or would you say strong, confident, capable characters are generally looked upon as the more appealing heroes?I'd say you need a combination of both, actually. A protagonist who's always messing up and never showing any form of growth or learning will grow frustrating after a while, especially if they keep making the same mistakes without even acknowledging it - and even if they acknowledge it, that's only worth so much if they don't make any effort to change. (Like, someone who keeps giving the macguffin to the enemies and says "I need to stop doing this" and then keeps doing that will just be annoying after the first three times it happens.) On the other hand, having a character who's always strong and confident and capable without any form of challenge gets boring after a while. Unless you have a way of writing a story for that kind of character (All Star Superman and Onepunch Man are good examples of stories about characters who are basically unbeatable that still challenge these characters), readers are going to say "okay so... there's this big world-ending threat... but it's not gonna do anything because the protagonist will sneeze and it'll be gone".

What you need is a good balance between the two. A character who, at the end of the day, is able to overcome the challenges laid out for them - but who fails along the way and grows as a person. A character who's reminded that sometimes you're not strong enough to beat the big bad, and has to face the consequences of that. For the most part, a character always has to win in the end- because there's only so many ways to take a story when the protagonist abruptly dies or is crippled because he or she lost a fight or failed to overcome a challenge- but there's no harm in failing along the way, especially if it helps them grow. Each kind of character has its own benefits, certainly - but I prefer seeing a blend of the two.

What do people think of underdogs? In your experience and/or preference, do people tend to like underdog characters? Characters who mess things up? Characters who make sometimes big mistakes? Or would you say strong, confident, capable characters are generally looked upon as the more appealing heroes?

My main character is an "underdog" ... he screws up nearly everything.He is supposed to be a magician apprentice. His magic is on a powerful but very unstable level (he mix up all the spells). Separated from his family and his mage mentor is he and his magic on the lose. And he has mostly stupid ideas.

The reader can empathise more likely with this kind of character.In my eyes a strong, confident, capable character from the start is mostly boring. There is no more growing possible. At least, as long as you won't give him a flaw.

Smopit wrote:What do people think of underdogs? In your experience and/or preference, do people tend to like underdog characters? Characters who mess things up? Characters who make sometimes big mistakes? Or would you say strong, confident, capable characters are generally looked upon as the more appealing heroes?

The more plot-affecting flaws and weaknesses a character has, the more they can grow as part of the story. If all that growth happens at a reasonable pace, then you can have a character the audience can get invested in over the course of a longer story, they can run into many problems and grow from each one. A character with fewer flaws and weaknesses could easily get boring over the course of such a story because they would not be able to grow as a result of each thing you throw at them.On the other hand, in a shorter story, a character with many flaws/weaknesses as part of a shorter story would not have time to overcome many of them and would thus be at risk of not having a satisfying character arc, or they'd solve too many problems too quickly, making the story feel rushed or the character feel fake, like their weaknesses weren't real. It would be much easier to create a well-paced short story about a character who is generally competent outside of a few plot-affecting flaws.

In other words, the amount of plot-affecting flaws and weaknesses a character has should be roughly proportional to the length of the story.

This doesn't directly answer your question though, since not every flaw and weakness is plot-affecting. Some are just there to help the audience connect with the character better, or to provide context for the character's relationships and position in their world. So, anything works, people can connect with and root for both underdogs and competent characters. Some protagonists are underdogs, but have very few plot-affecting flaws (e.g. Danny in Hot Fuzz, a walking ball of flaws, but only has to overcome one in the story), and vice versa (e.g. All Might from Boku no Hero Academia, great at what he does, but has a large number of flaws and weaknesses that keep him from being what he wants to be). It's about how the story deals with that character and their flaws. Make sure that the flaws that have an effect on your plot are paced appropriately, so that the character neither stagnates nor grows too quickly. And of course, don't forget that even competent characters are often challenged.

Edit: I also want to mention another type of story: in some stories, the protagonists have no flaws to overcome, and there is no question of their competence, and the story is interesting instead for how the character will deal with the problem(s) before them. Some detective stories (including many of the shorter Sherlock Holmes stories) are of this type. Another example is Hellsing, at least past the first few chapters. "Competence porn" is one term I've heard for this type of story - there can be enjoyment in just watching characters do stuff way better than you can.